The Cosy Nook Cafe Port Erin

[Roger Mexico]

12 hours ago, Max Power said:

I don't have any information to link to, it's all based on a conversation I had which may be open to translation. 

I don't particularly agree that the building is historic, it's an old warehouse in a state of disrepair but I accept that it is a familiar old place. We have been knocking down much more worthy buildings around Douglas than this, now here we are, left with another derelict building to enhance the town. 

The only people who are going to develop Douglas are people and companies who have money, want to make money and have the resources to do so. The town is a disgrace and sinking into a pit. The lack of vibrancy is mainly down to poor legislation which creates a downward spiral over time. We need to be open to development, within certain constraints, particularly around the towns of the island, before it's too late.  

ETA: The planning permission may have been obtained to improve the chances of selling the premises. Easier to show that something can be done and it's possibly viable or negotiable? 

Hmmm.  So basically you're saying:

• Developers have been allowed to do whatever they want.
• Douglas is a shithole.
• The only people who can solve this is developers.
• Therefore developers must be allowed to do whatever they want.

There's a bit of a flaw in that reasoning.

Also saying that developers should be allowed to demolish buildings if they become derelict, is pretty much an invitation for developers to let (even encourage) buildings to become derelict.

[TerryFuchwit]

7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Hmmm.  So basically you're saying:

• Developers have been allowed to do whatever they want.
• Douglas is a shithole.
• The only people who can solve this is developers.
• Therefore developers must be allowed to do whatever they want.

There's a bit of a flaw in that reasoning.

Also saying that developers should be allowed to demolish buildings if they become derelict, is pretty much an invitation for developers to let (even encourage) buildings to become derelict.

It isn't really.

I'm not sure what this obsession is with retaining buildings.  Buildings have a life span.  

The Quay should be a place benefitting from development to modernise it.  The Newsons building is of no importance at all.   Any commercial enterprise is going to want a viable plan and that involves knocking down shitty buildings to make way for better suited projects.

This is like the Ramsey Quay situation with that crappy derelict building they stopped Trevor Hemmings knocking down for ages.  Utterly pointless and has just held back something that could have added plenty to the area years ago.

[Declan]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

I think people miss the point of the design of the new building. It wasn't particularly meant to look nice from the outside. Its beauty is what you are intended to see when you are in it. Unlike the old building. The new one was to give users a feel of being outside but actually inside nice and warm.

Also it wouldn't have been particularly obtrusive. It's up against the bank, so it wouldn't block the view from the upper Prom.  You'd see it from the beach, but who walks along the beach  and looks at the Cozy Nook now - people look at the hills, or out to sea? I reckon it would be about as obtrusive as the old arcade that's now a pizza delivery place.  

[Chef Raekwon]

7 minutes ago, Declan said:

Also it wouldn't have been particularly obtrusive. It's up against the bank, so it wouldn't block the view from the upper Prom.  You'd see it from the beach, but who walks along the beach  and looks at the Cozy Nook now - people look at the hills, or out to sea? I reckon it would be about as obtrusive as the old arcade that's now a pizza delivery place.  

You're right of course, but that wouldn't stop a certain type of person from going down there and getting themselves very upset about it.

[Max Power]

45 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Hmmm.  So basically you're saying:

• Developers have been allowed to do whatever they want. In some cases yes.
• Douglas is a shithole. In many places yes.
• The only people who can solve this is developers. In some cases yes.
• Therefore developers must be allowed to do whatever they want. In some cases yes.

There's a bit of a flaw in that reasoning. Only a bit though.

Also saying that developers should be allowed to demolish buildings if they become derelict, is pretty much an invitation for developers to let (even encourage) buildings to become derelict. That's why we should be deciding which buildings are truly worth preserving and really add something to the place. Not doing it ad hoc and willy nilly!

I'm not being awkward Roger, what seems to be happening  is that we have people willing to spend their money on developing eyesores and we are doing our best to discourage them. It's up to the planners to get a proper handle on this. There are always people who don't want progress and for things to remain as they were when they were children, invariably these protestations lead to a hollow victory and a derelict building!

[TerryFuchwit]

3 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I'm not being awkward Roger, what seems to be happening  is that we have people willing to spend their money on developing eyesores and we are doing our best to discourage them. It's up to the planners to get a proper handle on this. There are always people who don't want progress and for things to remain as they were when they were children, invariably these protestations lead to a hollow victory and a derelict building!

I  often think the main problem with the NIMBY type objectors is not so much they object to a shit tip being knocked down but more the awful thought someone might make some money.

The Newsons building had long been an eyesore.  Impossible to really do a lot with the current building in a commercially viable sense.  I'm not sure what the powers that be expect for that place now.  It'll remain a derelict eyesore for years.

 

[John Wright]

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

I'm not being awkward Roger, what seems to be happening  is that we have people willing to spend their money on developing eyesores and we are doing our best to discourage them. It's up to the planners to get a proper handle on this. There are always people who don't want progress and for things to remain as they were when they were children, invariably these protestations lead to a hollow victory and a derelict building!

I think there’s a huge misunderstanding about registering. It’s not the same as listing and obtaining listed building consent and then the materials and methodology constraints are nothing like in England.

The building was listed in early 2018, the owner either didn’t appeal, or appealed unsuccessfully, and within 6 months had submitted a registered building planning application and within a year of registration had obtained consent.

So, the owner wasn’t thinking of dropping the building, but developing it. The owner got consent to do that. What’s changed?

Its nothing to do with planners discouraging, or blocking progress. 

The one thing wrong with our current register is that for the last 20 years the reasons and architectural, historic or cultural background aren’t contained in the documents on line. Originally they were. The early ones are very interesting.

[Max Power]

13 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I think there’s a huge misunderstanding about registering. It’s not the same as listing and obtaining listed building consent and then the materials and methodology constraints are nothing like in England.

The building was listed in early 2018, the owner either didn’t appeal, or appealed unsuccessfully, and within 6 months had submitted a registered building planning application and within a year of registration had obtained consent.

So, the owner wasn’t thinking of dropping the building, but developing it. The owner got consent to do that. What’s changed?

Its nothing to do with planners discouraging, or blocking progress. 

The one thing wrong with our current register is that for the last 20 years the reasons and architectural, historic or cultural background aren’t contained in the documents on line. Originally they were. The early ones are very interesting.

As I mentioned above, I'm basing this on a conversation so I may be wrong on a couple of points.

As I see it, the person checked on the status of the building before purchase, to be told it wasn't protected in any way. I'm assuming that the plans were drawn up to demolish and rebuild, apparently there were a couple of exciting features included. In the meantime the planners somehow got it listed so he was told that he wouldn't be able to drop the building. The later plans, which were approved, were to enable him to sell the building with an approval? Again I'm assuming that for his purposes, working around the building in situ was either too costly or didn't achieve the objective he had in mind? 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Max Power

[John Wright]

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

As I mentioned above, I'm basing this on a conversation so I may be wrong on a couple of points.

As I see it, the person checked on the status of the building before purchase, to be told it wasn't protected in any way. I'm assuming that the plans were drawn up to demolish and rebuild, apparently there were a couple of exciting features included. In the meantime the planners somehow got it listed so he was told that he wouldn't be able to drop the building. The later plans, which were approved, were to enable him to sell the building with an approval? Again I'm assuming that for his purposes, working around the building in situ was either too costly or didn't achieve the objective he had in mind?  

Lot of assumptions there. Let’s work on the known facts ( which I’ve set out ).

Assume makes an ass of u and me.

[TerryFuchwit]

16 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I think there’s a huge misunderstanding about registering. It’s not the same as listing and obtaining listed building consent and then the materials and methodology constraints are nothing like in England.

The building was listed in early 2018, the owner either didn’t appeal, or appealed unsuccessfully, and within 6 months had submitted a registered building planning application and within a year of registration had obtained consent.

So, the owner wasn’t thinking of dropping the building, but developing it. The owner got consent to do that. What’s changed?

Its nothing to do with planners discouraging, or blocking progress. 

The one thing wrong with our current register is that for the last 20 years the reasons and architectural, historic or cultural background aren’t contained in the documents on line. Originally they were. The early ones are very interesting.

Maybe what's changed is that when the costings have been done on what was consented to by planning it became apparent it wasn't financially viable.

Quite clearly it would be better to drop the building and start again.  Quite why it is listed at all is mystifying.

[Max Power]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

Lot of assumptions there. Let’s work on the known facts ( which I’ve set out ).

Assume makes an ass of u and me.

Not too many assumptions, based on a conversation and not on anything I've seen written down. The gist of it is that the guy has given up on investing in the island, I don't think he's the only one. 

[John Wright]

20 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Not too many assumptions, based on a conversation and not on anything I've seen written down. The gist of it is that the guy has given up on investing in the island, I don't think he's the only one. 

‘‘Twas you that repeated “I’m assuming”

[Rhumsaa]

Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas to me are the classic example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

We want to retain buildings of significant interest and beauty and retain characteristics in certain areas - all good goals and ideals

The practical result of that is subjectiveness and bureaucracy start having to get involved. Older properties that already fighting against the ravages of time and the progression of technology and regulatory requirements become harder and more expensive to maintain. The average property owner finds themselves unable to justify or afford the investment required and the building starts to fall into disrepair.

This building then either ceases to be of use or is sold on to someone who has the resources to do something with it. Now it would be nice if the purchaser has a mixture of financial clout and willingness to altruistically retain all the nice features and plough money into fixing and improving. However I suspect that is a fairytale in 99% of cases.

More likely the smart financial move is to treat the building as an investment in land and sit on it. Worst case scenario is that the building becomes so rotten that it falls down or (ironically) the government issues an order to demolish the property for safety reasons.

Ideally there would be some incentive or enforcement options available long before it gets to that stage in order to retain buildings in a good state rather than this nuclear option at the end of the process. Although that too is open to much subjectivity and problems.

[Roger Mexico]

3 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

Ideally there would be some incentive or enforcement options available long before it gets to that stage in order to retain buildings in a good state rather than this nuclear option at the end of the process. Although that too is open to much subjectivity and problems.

But there are already laws that allow for action to be forced or taken to restore derelict buildings.  You should speak to your local authority about it.

[SRB]

Saving a not fit for purpose building, only for it to be washed away by rising sea levels. At least a new build would have future proofed it and provided a decent sea front cafe that could be used year round and that faced the sea !